Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

link.springer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 662 posts

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#271

Post by 2devnull »

nulld3v wrote: post #67

I am vaccinated but I am upvoting this post because I believe that it is important to investigate these cases to determine how to improve future vaccines. I really don't like how this topic seems to be treated like some fringe conspiracy theory. Maybe it is just a conspiracy, but we won't ever know until sufficient research has been done. Currently, I still believe that people should vaccinate, even if vaccines cause…

Yes, it’s never either or. For one good example of the complexity, see this video [1] where Paul Offit notes the problems with the current bivalve that vaccines.

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-v_vXMI91nw

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#272

Post by Daishiman »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #70
librish wrote: post #39

A question for vaccine skeptics: For it to be a reasonable choice to not want to take the vaccine wouldn't you need to balance the risk of death / complications from the vaccine against the risk of death / complications from covid multiplied by the risk of getting covid? There seems to be a lot of "aha I knew it" whenever any side-effect of the vaccine is found, but aren't the side-effects of covid well established,…

> but aren't the side-effects of covid well established, on average more severe, and much more common? You forgot to account for the risk of getting the virus. If you choose to get the vaccine, the probability is 1. But what's the probability of getting Covid? Definitely less than 1. For certain age groups (young men), the risk of complications * probability of getting the vaccine (1) was more than the risk of compli…

> Remember, COVID hasn't been shown to be particularly dangerous to young people...

I have friends in their early 30s who still haven't recovered their sense of smell. Knoew a 25-year-old who spent 4 weeks with terrible symptoms. I'm a marathon runner and lift and in my early 30s and this disease kicked the shit out of me and had 4 with reduced physical function.

It is very obviously worse than the worst flus almost everyone had and the flu is sufficiently dangerous that it has a nontrivial effect in human quality of life.

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#273

Post by shagie »

nradov wrote: post #245
shagie wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That first part is a mistaken belief. There's also a useful metric for the "chance of dying" - it's known as a micromort. Each micromort is a one in a million chance of dying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort A fair bit of statistical work has been done on COVID-19 and it is summarized in the wikipedia article. AstraZeneca vaccination against COVID-19 – 2.9 micromorts[31] COVID-19 infection at age 10 – 20 micro…

How do those numbers change when you adjust for presence or absence of pre-existing conditions such as obesity and type-2 diabetes?

On the scale that micromorts work, that isn't something that it measures well. Micromorts work best for the acute risk "do X and this is your chance of dying." Adding in things that are chronic risks doesn't factor into micromorts well.

Consider "traveling 230 miles by car is 1 micromort"... but that doesn't account for impaired driving or any of the other factors known to influence likelihood or survival of a car crash.

The numbers would likely change if you further specified them, but they are useful for the broad comparisons and risk analysis.

If you've got someone going skydiving every weekend, what does that do to their life insurance rates? Well, skydiving is 8 micromorts per jump. So that's 400 micromorts per year. And that goes into some insurance premium cost calculations.

From Wikipedia:

> Micromorts for future activities can only be rough assessments, as specific circumstances will always have an impact. However, past historical rates of events can be used to provide a ball park, average figure.

Another part of this is a study about risk acceptance.

> An application of micromorts is measuring the value that humans place on risk. For example, a person can consider the amount of money they would be willing to pay to avoid a one-in-a-million chance of death (or conversely, the amount of money they would receive to accept a one-in-a-million chance of death). When offered this situation, people claim a high number. However, when looking at their day-to-day actions (e.g., how much they are willing to pay for safety features on cars), a typical value for a micromort is around $50 (in 2009). This is not to say the $50 valuation should be taken to mean that a human life (1 million micromorts) is valued at $50,000,000. Rather, people are less inclined to spend money after a certain point to increase their safety. This means that analyzing risk using the micromort is more useful when using small risks, not necessarily large ones.

That last sentence is an important one when looking at this.

Would you be willing to be paid $150 to get vaccinated?

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#274

Post by CorrectHorseBat »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #179
CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been only 3 years and basically everyone I know has had COVID, some more than once. I don't think it's significantly less than 1.

https://time.com/6170735/how-many-people-have-had-covid-19/ It's 60%. Probably. Meanwhile most vaccinated people have had 2-4 shots. Also keep in mind immunity doesn't last forever, so you need to balance the risk of the shot within a certain timeframe versus the risk of Covid times the risk of complications within the same timeframe. You also can't compare the lifetime risk of Covid versus only 1 shot, both occur wi…

60% of the population over a 5 month period had detectable levels of antibodies in their blood, so it's at least 60%. IIRC they are only detectable for a few months (but that maybe also depend on the way of testing I don't know) which would means it's closer to 100% than to 60%.

The risk comparison is indeed not trivial, but I think it's a safe bet that you're going to get covid.

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#275

Post by rednerrus »

aaomidi wrote: post #121
nyolfen wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the more interesting unaddressed question is, for whom ? i am a young-ish healthy person, i have basically no risk of ending up in the hospital for covid. what is the risk tradeoff for people similar to me, rather than an abstraction of the entire population? what is the risk tradeoff for a young child, who effectively has zero risk of serious covid?

Why do people keep thinking young people have no risk of ending up in the hospital for Covid? So many people have, and so many have died?

~26,000 people under 30 have died of COVID since the epidemic began.

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#276

Post by dang »

addingadimensio wrote: post #228
addingadimensio wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Quoted post unavailable.

We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. You can't do that here, and yes that rule holds regardless of which ideology you're battling for or against. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#277

Post by mrtksn »

nulld3v wrote: post #265
mrtksn wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there anything make you believe that the research doesn't continue?

I am worried how the discussion around the vaccine has turned political and how there are a lot of strong opinions around it. I worry it might affect funding and also "politically taint" people who publish research about it.

Fair enough but this doesn't mean that the research is finished, just the reporting on it is getting harder. People who actually work with these things instead of pushing their agenda are not really influenced by the politics because what they find is not political. They will not find out that bug Pharma was lying, they will find out how many people actually had myocarditis under what conditions for example.

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#278

Post by ceejayoz »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #270
ceejayoz wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because vaccination prevents you from spreading covid to others... I agree with your general point, but to be clear, it likely reduces your chances of doing that, to some extent. It does not prevent you from spreading COVID.

Those two sentences are equivalent, not contradictory. We commonly say that condoms prevent pregnancy and STD's, but they're not perfect either. If the vaccine prevents one case of spread while not preventing another, it has still prevented COVID spread.

"Not perfect" and "has a small impact" aren't the same. If condoms had the same failure rate in preventing STDs/pregnancy as the COVID vaccines do for preventing infection, we wouldn't use them. Luckily, preventing infection isn't the only goal of vaccines, so it's still worth getting for the protection from severe illness and death.

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#279

Post by bena »

mrtksn wrote: post #226
bena wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to this guy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34004500 He is acting like it's support of anti-vaxxer claims. And it is why these articles get shared. Because they contain a very slight, practically negligible affirmation of the smallest portion of their claims. And that, in their eyes, is enough to proclaim victory.

If I'm going to read anti vaxxer content I need to be paid, I'm so done finding misrepresentations and statistical hackery in propaganda articles. They cherry pick data, resort in fallacies and all kinds of trickery. They give you a shocking graph where you can see that young people are dying en masse only to find out that this graph is achieved through visual or statistical BS. Hours spend to dig out lies, completel…

I'm a little confused here. I'm not trying to convince you of the anti-vaxxer side.

You said:

> "I don't know why the HN comments are acting as if this is some kind of research supporting the anti vaxxer claims."

To which I posted a link of a guy who is acting as if this is some kind of research supporting the anti-vaxxer claims. The comments were trying to head off the exact thing that happened. Because those users know the pattern. They know why this was posted. It was posted specifically as "vindication" for anti-vaxxers. Those comments to point out that this study does not in any way vindicate anti-vaxxers are needed and the people who made them were right to make those comments.

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#280

Post by rednerrus »

eli wrote: post #173
nyolfen wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

statistically, it is extremely unlikely[0] for an otherwise healthy young person to end up in the hospital for covid, much like myocarditis -- i am simply interested in which is more likely for specific population subsets [0] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/figures/mm6915e3-F1.g... -- from https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e3.htm

The numbers are so small that it is hard to say -- several long-term studies are ongoing. All the evidence suggests the risk of Covid is far greater. I'm sure you know this, but covid causes significantly more cases of myocarditis than the vaccine.

The vaccine isn't preventing COVID, it's just limiting symptoms. Does it lower the risk of myocarditis from COVID?

I just looked. The Vaccine doesn't lower your risk of getting myocarditis if you still become infected by COVID.

Post reply on HN